Jump to content

Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Requested edit

Please restore the below text as the lead sentence, as determined by consensus above. Some who disagreed with the consensus edit warred, leading to page protection, but consensus is not unanimous. It has been reported by multiple news organizations that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee. All of this is laid out above on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

'''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|h|ɪ|l|ə|r|i|_|d|aɪ|ˈ|æ|n|_|ˈ|r|ɒ|d|ə|m|_|ˈ|k|l|ɪ|n|t|ən}}; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and the [[presumptive nominee]] of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] for [[President of the United States]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016 election]], meaning she will likely become the first female presidential nominee of one of the two major political parties in the history of the United States.

FWIW, I support this version :) GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Me too!....also, the Democratic Party presumptive nominee text in the infobox does not seem to be working.........Republican Party infobox showing just fine......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Nations United (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I assume you mean navbox. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
sorry....yes..Pvmoutside (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    • If you want an attributed version, it'd read like this:
      • '''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|h|ɪ|l|ə|r|i|_|d|aɪ|ˈ|æ|n|_|ˈ|r|ɒ|d|ə|m|_|ˈ|k|l|ɪ|n|t|ən}}; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and the [[presumptive nominee]] of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] for [[President of the United States]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2016|2016 election]], according to the [[Associated Press]], [[NBC News]], [[ABC News]], [[CBS News]], and [[CNN]], meaning she will likely become the first female presidential nominee of one of the two major political parties in the history of the United States. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 The phrase "she will likely become" is speculative. Jonathunder (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources are calling it "historic" because she is the first woman to become the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties in the USA. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as requested. No need for attribution in the introduction, as long as it is properly attributed and sourced in the body. She is the presumptive nominee, so I don't see why this is an issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion so calling her the first presumptive nominee is historic in itself...By using the word "may" for her status as the actual nominee connotates "CRYSTAL". We can wait for her status as may be the first woman presidential nominee, but I have no problem calling her the first woman presidential presumptive nominee.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no difference between the two, unless you want to dispute that she is female. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a slight semantic difference. That she may be the first woman presidential nominee is CRYSTAL simply by using the word may. Although unlikely, something may happen to change that. By amassing enough delegates in this point in time, all the major media outlets are calling her the presumptive nominee which is an actual term and now is without dispute. If they unlikely recanvass the superdelegates and determine she is short, then she returns to being a candidate....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it would be CRYSTAL to say that she will be the first woman presidential nominee. The fact that she will likely be that follows indisputably from "presumptive nominee" and the fact that she is a woman. There is no need for even the word "may". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
All I'm saying is something very unlikely could occur prior to the vote at the convention, most likely not, but.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, hence the hedge word "likely". It means "probably, not certainly". That is all we need to say. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
"Likely connotates not certain. With something evidently as controversial as this, first woman presumptive presidential nominee would not be controversial. Likely may create a controversy we can avoid until the convention......Pvmoutside (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's leave it here: You have zero support for such an argument as of this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple major media outlets are calling Clinton the presumptive nominee. It's clearly not WP:CRYSTAL given the widespread usage of the term by analysts and the media. The proposed text describes her as the presumptive nominee (which she is) and offers an explanation for what that means (which in this context is helpful and useful information in the lead) and why it's notable. Ravensfire (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion: Presumptive and actual are different. I agree she and Donald Trump are the presumptive nominees. Being the actual nominee requires you to be voted as such at the respective conventions...Pvmoutside (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, all the Republicans yielded, which is a big difference when looking at presumptive nominee. Maybe the definition in the dictionary is different. Jadeslair (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Who is suggesting that we state she is the actual nominee? Have you read the proposed change? Why are you starting discussion about things that are not in dispute? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought there was a comment regarding her being the first woman presidential nominee, I don't see that now, must have misread...Pvmoutside (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, but there is actual terminology in place for where the process is. Candidate up to securing the nomination, presumptive nominee for the time the candidate has secured the nomination up until receiving enough votes at the nominating convention, and nominee after receiving the majority of votes there...Pvmoutside (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't seem to follow you. The proposal says "presumptive nominee". Is that not the correct terminology to describe her status right now?- MrX 21:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes....presumptive works MrX........Pvmoutside (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles are supposed to convey information rather than provide spin. If we are to say that Hillary Clinton is the nominee apparent, we need to explain what that means. Much more neutral to say what her status is and state how that is described in mainstream media. By most definitions (not including recent 24 hr news networks reports), Clinton has been the nominee presumptive for 12 years and will continue to be so for the next four years, except for several months in 2008 when Obama became nominee presumptive. TFD (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It's used at Donald Trump, why can't it be used here? GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
You are the only editor present who disputes the mainstream definition of the words "presumptive nominee". In any case, as I'm sure you know, a consensus for this change does not preclude further discussion, further consensus, and further improvement; it is not an all-or-nothing choice, we do not have to achieve perfection in a single discussion, and it is counterproductive to try to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The meaning of "presumptive nominee" is fully explained in the wikilinked article on the term. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Many more sources say she's the Democrats presumptive presidential nominee & that's what we should go with. There's no way that this info should be kept from this article, just because Sanders doesn't want to quit. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
He does not have to drop out. He is running for President of the United States, it is not likely he would have another chance. But that is not really the issue. She is not the candidate yet. Jadeslair (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
She's the Democratic party's presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
She is not the candidate yet. Correct. And the proposed language does not say that she is. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems that both sides should be shown if you want to include it. "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Wikipedia:Verifiability She was declared the presumptive nominee by AP which is not in a position to do so. Jadeslair (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Your alternative viewpoints may be worthy of some brief mention in the body, but the body is not what this proposal is about. It is certainly not worthy of mention in the lead, let alone the first sentence. The current New York Times piece includes the words, "Reaching for history as she became the first woman to win a major party’s nomination..." Their voice, unqualified, unattributed, no mention of AP. Clearly, the venerable New York Times accepts, embraces, and endorses the AP survey. Per Wikipedia policy, we should do the same unless you can show that many mainstream sources are hedging a lot more than NYT. Without that, those minority viewpoints are WP:FRINGE. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)::::::As the lede is/was (now multiple) proposed it does not seem to adhere to the Manual of style [[MOS:CONTEXTLINK

]], specifically she is not famous for being the presumptive nominee. Also, It includes the definition of presumptive nominee. The article is not about that. It should include her current position, which is candidate. I do like the most recent editbecause it states the media labeled her as that.Jadeslair (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet to see RS offered showing dispute or refutation of "presumptive nominee". I think you'd be hard pressed to find any that are not opinion pieces or fringe at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Per EvergreenFir, what are these "many more sources"? I haven't seen a single one presented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support — She is not the official nominee (granted) as yet, but she is certainly by definition the 'presumptive nominee'. That's reflected in the dozens of major media outlets that have made that call, even Clinton has come around to it now. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment added the "answered=yes" parameter to the {{edit fully-protected}} template above, as the page is no longer fully protected (a 24H semi-protection has been put up since), and a shorter version of the above proposal has been introduced into the article in between page protections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
    The IP's edit was not discussed let alone reaching firm consensus, and could be reverted as far as I'm concerned, by someone who can help enforce that policy without violating 1RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment:Again, please read Wikipedia's definition for presumptive nominee. Clinton now clearly qualifies for the definition based on number of delegates committed to her....Pvmoutside (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Comment designed to inflame fellow editors.
*Support — Crushes Sanders in both California and New Jersey and secures the majority by a country mile but still the Berniebots in Wikipedia refuse to allow the article to call her what she is, the presumptive nomineee. Populism really brings out the most pathetic instincts in people. Narciso003 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's claim to the presumptive nominee status

After the lead sentence, insert: "On 7 June 2016 she claimed to have secured her status as presumptive nominee for the party.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Michael Falcone, Meredith McGraw, Liz Kreutz and Josh Haskell. "Hillary Clinton: Becoming Presumptive Democratic Nominee Will ‘Send a Signal Around the World’." ABC news, June 7, 2016

I don't think that anyone doubts that this is what she claims. Further explanations on major media outlets publishing their prognoses based on their calculations before Clinton endorsed the claim, and Sanders' take on all of this can go summarized in the body of the article – for which I propose to unprotect the article if everyone is OK with this addition to the lead section, and if the edit request in the previous section, based on the media outlets' calculations exclusively, can be dropped by consensus, as superseded by this new request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected. Also, the correct terminology is presumptive nominee, not presumptive candidate. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Oops for the candidate/nominee confusion, tried to correct. Withdrawn as an edit request, per article no longer protected. What remains:
All language surrounding "presumptive" is under discussion in the preceding section. It is highly controversial and no edit can be made without firm consensus, per notice at the top of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added discussion of her presumptive nominee status to the Hillary Clinton#2016 presidential campaign section. I made this decision in light of the information's inclusion in the lead and the resolutions in favour of this position in the articles on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and US presidential election, 2016. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had a go at making the intro a bit more NPOV, by headlining what is uncontestable (that she is running to be Democratic nominee), and also, immediately after that, a more nuanced mention of the presumptive nominee status as something that has been agreed on by "multiple major media sources" -- but not going as far as declaring it as fact in Wikipedia's own voice. The resulting intro para now looks like this:

I hope this is a reasonable compromise for the moment, until the situation crystallizes in a few more days. -- The Anome (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with the statement as written....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Meh, "...currently...", hate that word in encyclopedical writing. Also, I think the "first woman" bit maybe a bit too much detail for the lede section (as the body of the article has no more information than that word-wrangling in two sentences in the lead paragraph). Another way to make it a bit shorter than what is in the body of the article would be this:
Note that the word "claim" (in the second sentence relating to presumptive nominee status) is in the source used for that material in the body of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome and Francis Schonken: Thanks for showing us how it's done. Ignore the DS notice and the existing discussion and just do what you feel is good for the article. This, the day after a low-experience editor received a 1-week block for doing much the same thing out of what appeared to be genuine ignorance. Very nice, very impressive. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that (assuming the above wasn't sarcasm), but I'd just like to state that this isn't a case of WP:IAR: I believe my edits are in accord with both the spirit of the discussions above and Wikipedia policy, and I believe they also synthesize the general consensus of prior discussions (which I did read first), all taken together -- you might want to note that I've been very careful in how I've worded my edits. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you and Kerimb123 should have made your arguments in the previous section and waited until there was some consensus. Several of us have opposed attribution.- MrX 13:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that the discussions above reached consensus, for the very specific set of claims in the statements above. Please re-read the edit, and tell me what in it is contrary to either policy or consensus. -- The Anome (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Quite simply, there is weak support for attribution, thus there is no consensus for your edit in which you included attribution.- MrX 13:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've appended this section to the previous. Clinton endorsing the claim (previously only mentioned by the media) is however a new element, that wasn't available yet in yesterday's discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Struck my comment here and replaced it below, as the indented comments following here don't seem to be a reply to it, but to someone else's comment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't do sarcasm. Ok, I did once.
The discussion was a proposal for very specific language, not a general discussion of presumptive nominee. Even if you read a "firm consensus" there, which I think some would dispute, it was not a consensus for whatever variation you deemed equival;ent. Your average editor would have been expected to propose their alternative text and seek that "firm consensus" for it, and they likely would have been blocked if they had failed to do so. Would you have actively opposed such a block? That's rhetorical, no response needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That's why I didn't use the very specific language for which there was no consensus. Instead, I added a set of different, very carefully worded, unambiguously true statements, each one of which is individually fully compliant with Wikipedia policy, and the comments made in the discussions above: that she is campaigning to be nominee (surely no-one denies that), that media sources had reported her as presumptive nominee (source: vast numbers of WP:RS reporting on these other media statements, none denying that these other media statements were made), and that, were she to be the presumptive nominee, she would be the first woman to achieve that status for a major party. -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In that case you were even more blatantly in violation of the DS notice, bullet 1: "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits." If the content area is already under discussion, and a fairly heated discussion, any edit in that area is quite obviously a "potentially contentious" edit. No, strike the word "potentially". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
What, factually, is potentially contentious about any of those three, very carefully phrased, assertions? (Please note that I have been very careful to neither say that she is, or is not, the presumptive nominee, either of which would indeed be potentially contentious.) -- The Anome (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the whole area of language related to presumptive nominee has been widely debated, disputed, and even edit warred for the past, what, 24 or 48 hours? You are making a content argument, and I'm talking about process, which must come first. I'm talking about the editor who was blocked for a week for making an edit in this area without firm consensus for it, and I'm talking about equity and fairness. If your edits are so patently uncontroversial, the required firm consensus would have been easy, correct? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Where do I say anything about her being presumptive nominee? I've been very careful to avoid saying that. I've only said that multiple WP:RS are saying that she is the presumptive nominee, a statement of fact that is not up for contention. Unless, perhaps, you'd like to contend that this is not the case? -- The Anome (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, for the record, a contentious content area loses its contentiousness if you add a few words like "multiple WP:RS are saying that". If you do that, bullet 1 does not apply. Got it, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That is indeed my assertion. I note that you do not wish to contend the validity of that particular arm of my three-fold edit. Would you like to contend either of the others? -- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, I am talking about process, not content. Again, the content area is known to be contentious, requiring prior firm consensus. You are saying, essentially, that no prior consensus is required if one feels that their edit is justified, even within an area already known to be contentious. Guess what, every editor feels that their every edit is justified, so what use is that reasoning when working within discretionary sanctions? Anyway, we appear to be speaking different languages so I suggest that we stop wasting our time here. I am supporting an unblock of the other editor on their talk page due to the inconsistent, status-based, strict application of the rule, which is patently unfair to that editor and detrimental to the project. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
How someone feels about their edit is irrelevant. Even articles under discretionary sanctions are still subject to Wikipedia's normal editing processes -- we just can't make "potentially contentious" edits -- and I have carefully steered clear of making any of the statements that have previously generated contention. Otherwise, no editing whatsoever would be possible, even if just one editor objected. At the moment, this one editor seems to be you, and even you don't actually seem to be contesting the factual truth of any part of that edit. About unblocking the other editor: yes, policies should be applied fairly regardless of status, and if the other editor was editing according to policy, and the decision wasn't made by the arbcom or Foundation they should indeed be unblocked. -- The Anome (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There's definitely no consensus for the 'We don't know'-type of edits you've been making. Therefore, you shouldn't be pushing them on the article, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Pay attention. They have stated that no consensus is needed provided their edit is a good one. Damn, now I've done sarcasm twice. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
My work here is done. My edits appear only to be opposed by just two editors, who take exactly opposing views, and neither of which has made any assertion that any of the three statements in my edit are factually contentious in any way. I now recuse myself from editing this article for a week. -- The Anome (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I've appended this section to the previous. Clinton endorsing the claim (previously only mentioned by the media) is however a new element, that wasn't available yet in yesterday's discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, here we go. @Mr X: you're removed the statement regarding " multiple major media sources have declared her to be the party's presumptive nominee" in this edit, "awaiting consensus on talk page". Note that the statement only claims that they make this claim, not that she actually is the presumptive nominee. Note that this is WP:RS reporting on other WP:RS -- second-level opinion. As far as I can tell, this statement (that the claim has been made by these media sources) is unambiguously true, as per WP:NPOV -- it is supported by a vast number of WP:RS, and no WP:RS makes the claim that others did not make the claim. Can you please explain why this could possibly be a matter of contention? -- The Anome (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Your edit is factually correct, but adds unnecessary attribution and equivocation. It is a widely held view that she is now the presumptive (or likely) party nominee. Are there reliable sources from today that explicitly claim that she is not the presumptive nominee?- MrX 13:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, here's one that, while not explicitly claiming she is not the nominee, very clearly and explicitly does not make the claim that she is, but reserves judgment: [1] -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Fringe. If Bernie doesn't drop out in the next 48 hours, I'll eat my hat.- MrX 14:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@The Anome: The same outlet (CBC) describes her as the presumptive nominee in two other articles [2], [3]. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is quite frustrating, what's going on at this article. According to many reliable sources, Hillary Clinton IS the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee & that's what should be shown. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I happen to agree with you, I think she is now the presumptive presidential nominee by any normal standards, and is indeed being widely (but not yet universally) reported as such. But we cannot say so in this article yet, because we do not yet have consensus to do so, and there are special restrictions of what can be edited here. Hence my very carefully worded edit, which attempts to cut this particular Gordian knot by making only statements which are not "potentially contentious". -- The Anome (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Your version isn't acceptable. The intro should be as it is at the Donald Trump article. Just because Sanders won't quit, is no reason for us to hide Clinton current status. Anyways, I've opened an Rfc on this matter, to get more outside input. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rfc on status as Democrats presumptive presidential nominee

WP:SNOW yes. No source whatsoever has been advanced to show that she is not the presumptive nominee, whereas the AP has been calling her the presumptive nominee and every major news network has followed suit. Before someone accuses me of POV pushing, you should probably be aware that I voted for Sanders. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 20:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Hillary Clinton the Democratic party's presumptive presidential nominee? GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes: Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Almost certainly The Anome (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - This is beyond obvious. For the Democratic Party, the "presumptive" nominee is the candidate who is presumed to be the eventual nominee if he or she passes the required number of delegates to form a majority. That number primarily includes pledged delegates, but also includes super delegates who have firmly committed to a candidate based on surveys conducted by the mainstream media (of which there are several). There are literally hundreds of reliable sources referring to Hillary Clinton as the "presumptive nominee" now, not just because she has amassed well beyond the required total, but also because it is now impossible for Bernie Sanders to beat her in pledged delegates. Once all the delegates have voted at the convention, the candidate ceases to be the "presumptive" nominee and becomes the "presidential nominee". Editors claiming that we are supposed to wait until super delegates vote obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "presumptive", or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, she is the presumptive nominee. All major media outlets are now describing her as the presumptive nominee. Wikipedia should report what the sources say. Agree with Scjessey completely. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we please close this RfC? It's pointless. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not pointless. We need outside input on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a fire drill. RfCs run for days. The timing on Clinton locking up the nomination has been much faster than that. Anyway, this is a WP:SNOW issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

All the reliable sources say so. I've seen a lot of posts on this talk page (and those of related articles) disputing the accuracy of this, but I ask all editors to remember that it's not for us to set criteria for calling someone the presumptive nominee. That's the reliable sources' job, and they clearly think Hillary Clinton has met the necessary criteria. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We can't say one way or another, yet, per the discretionary sanctions. I personally think she's the presumptive nominee, but we don't yet have the overwhelming evidence needed to make this statement not "potentially contentious" -- quite a few major media sources are still hedging this. I would imagine that there are vigorous discussions going on within the Democratic party about this right now: we will probably have some sort of definitive resolution within the week, either through Bernie conceding, or the mainstream media reaching sufficiently overwhelming consensus at to meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV criteria for saying so. I note that Bernie's just laid off half his campaign staff, which is probably a clue. -- The Anome (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There will always be fringe sources that dispute this, right up until the convention. We should go with what the most reliable sources say. The AP (along with every other major media outlet in the country) now considers her to be the presumptive nominee, and we should report that. If we required candidates to reach the required number of delegates with *pledged* delegates alone, then it would be impossible for the Democratic primaries to produce a presumptive nominee in any race closer than a 15-point margin (since superdelegates make up 15% of all delegate votes). Obama was declared the presumptive nominee at this point in 2008, before Clinton had conceded, and it's the same for Clinton this time. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment I think WP:JARGON applies: "...editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon....Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." The information we want to convey is that Clinton has enough delegates who are legally obligated to vote for her and superdelegates who have said they would vote for her to win the nomination. Why not say that and mention that the news media use the term "presumptive nominee?" I do not think there has been a case where someone who did not have a majority of legally bound delegates and the opponent had not conceded since the 1980 Democratic National Convention (Carter v. Kennedy). No mention in that article or the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1980 or presumptive nominees. Would also mention that "presumptive" means probable, by which definition Clinton has been the presumptive nominee for 8 years. See for example, the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, p. 371: "In the 2000 election, Democratic vice president Albert Gore had been the presumptive nominee of his party for nearly eight years."[4] While that does not mean that is the only meaning used for the term, it shows its ambiguity. TFD (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
As GoodDay said below, we could avoid using the phrase presumptive nominee by copying the phrasing from the Donald Trump article. I personally have no issue with the phrase "presumptive nominee" but I think that it's a perfectly acceptable alternative. From reading the article, a casual and uninformed reader should be able to learn that Hillary Clinton has met the requirements to become the nominee, and will officially do so at the convention. So any phrasing that gets the point across seems fine to me. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
it shows its ambiguity - No, it clearly shows that there is not 100% global agreement on the definition, information that is neither surprising nor useful to this discussion. See WP:FRINGE. This is no more jargon than many other terms used in the article without explanation, such as "congressional legal counsel", "subpoenaed", "polarized", "filibustering", and "consulate security" (which gets us to the end of the lead). ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The version style being used at the intro to the Donald Trump article, should be adopted to this article's intro, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

this is not the same thing as Donald Trump's situationJadeslair (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Another point worth making for the people who insist we should wait until the super delegates have voted: there are similarities between the term "presumptive nominee" and "president-elect". The electors chosen in November to represent their states in the Electoral College don't actually vote until mid December, but nobody would claim the winner of the general election in November is not the president-elect until the Electoral College had voted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This nonsense needs to stop. ALL sources are calling her the presumptive nominee. NPR, in their hourly news roundup, says she "assured the nomination". I challenge anyone voting "No" to provide any non-fringe non-op-ed pieces that dispute the label "presumptive". Those citing POV as reason for opposition are themselves in violation of it. We describe what sources say neutrally. Sources say she's the presumptive nominee. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obama's endorsement

I think the article should mention Obama's endorsement of her candidacy today somewhere. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely that merits a sentence at the end of Hillary Clinton#2016 presidential campaign. As additional endorsements are announced, they can simply be added to the same sentence (exact dates for each are not that important). The same obviously goes for Trump, although I haven't been involved in that article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe shoehorn it into the candidacy section, but honestly I think it only belongs on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. It's really not notable enough to include on the biography page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I could support that too, provided there is parity. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it should only be at the presidential campaign article. Endorsements are relevant to the campaign but not really to the person themselves (unless the endorsement is cited as a key reason that someone did/didn't win, perhaps). ~ RobTalk 00:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Two signatures in infobox?

Some recent back-and-forth on the article drew my attention to the fact that currently the infobox contains two images of the subject's signature. Is that usual? If not, which one should be removed: the one in the "signature=" parameter, or the larger one at the bottom of the infobox? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

There's only one signature in the infobox. Are you perhaps referring to the signature in the navbox {{Hillary Clinton series}}?- MrX 10:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sorry for the confusion. Maybe the navbox doesn't need it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
[5] – a navbox should probably not have more than one image, as its primary goal is navigation, not illustration? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the navbox doesn't need a signature. Boldly removed. - MrX 11:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact that there is a signature also in the infobox is a technicality and shouldn't warrant removal. There are dozens of articles with this series box, and only once does this redundancy occur. An autograph/signature is a central part of the identity of an politician, statesman, or otherwise public figure, just as is their written name, portrait, or the office they hold. That is why the series boxes in include their name, portrait, and the seal of the office they hold/held (when applicable). It is why the coloration of the series box either corresponds to their party affiliation or their office (when President). The series box represents a uniform navigational tool that follows the reader and content throughout the pages which document the life and times of the particular individual, in this case Hillary Clinton. So whenever you visit a page from the series box, or land on that page originally, it will allow you to follow the major events of the periods and offices in the life and career of Mrs. Clinton. If there were a way to hide the series box signature on the bio page, I'd go with that, but we have to agree that while the series box is functional, it is also aesthetic too, a quality which I believe belongs in Wikipedia. It doesn't take up any space on a mobile platform, and on a desktop looks nice. Let's keep it for these reasons.   Spartan7W §   14:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of signature from nav box. One huge signature is enough. If it's restored to the nav box, then the other one ought to go.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: I understand the encyclopedic value of the visual identity of a well-known person in a navbox, which is accomplished by a portrait of the person. I don't understand what encyclopedic value their signature has in a navbox. It seems purely decorative. That said, I would be fine with a parameter in the navbox template that would allow suppression of the signature on case by case basis.- MrX 15:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to exclude it in that case?   Spartan7W §   15:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Good idea X. I think I saw that done at pi.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, It's the same situation at the Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like there's a rough consensus to add a parameter to the navbox to optionally suppress the signature. I can work on adding it later today, unless someone beats me to it.- MrX 16:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. This pi template might help; it uses one (animated) image at the main pi article, and then another image elsewhere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, it's done and it seems to work correctly.- MrX 20:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Thanks, that's well done. Good compromise.   Spartan7W §   00:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

More like a principled agreement (per WP:NEGOTIATION and MOS:INTRO) than a "compromise", Spartan7W. See WP:NEGOTIATION article for helpful info. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
There's an odd white space gap where the signature used to be, but that's just picky me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Not an issue, Mandruss. As pointed out by Spartan7W above, the navbox "doesn't take up any space on a mobile platform, and on a desktop looks nice". Actually, on a desktop it looks nicer with the white space than without (especialy at 67% magnification, on my screen). --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That's wonderful, glad you like it. In that case, the same aesthetics could be applied to the rest of the navbox and the infobox too. Add that nice-looking white space between each field. Me, I'd opt for consistency over one isolated nice white space. But in the end I DGAF. BTW and FYI, pings don't work unless added in the same edit as your signature. I didn't receive that one. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
What looks nicer (at 67%) is the article body, Mandruss. With the whitespace, the first line runs to 109 characters (on my screen); without, 123 characters. The optimum for readability is 65-70 characters. But at higher magnification, there's little or no improvement, so I'd be happy to support you on consistency. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

kurds

What does he think about kurdish autonomy in Turkey, Iraq, Syria etc?--Kaiyr (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016


86.133.109.223 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Could be a null edit request. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 12:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Linking to list of female presidential candidates

In the header, its says Hillary is the first woman to win a US major party's nomination. I think it would be really great to somewhere link this article: List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates, because it really shows how long in the making it has been for woman to ever win a party's nomination. Apparently some deem this as "unrelated" though and don't want to link "first woman" to this article. Maybe we can restructure the sentence to link to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - also a link to Victoria Woodhull - the 1872 candidate for the United States presidency, who was a woman. PLawrence99cx (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. That is all. Teammm talk
email 21:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:EGG. It was the rationale for removing the link, and the rationale was a sound one. If you can propose a way to link to it while complying with EGG, have at it. If not, then look for a reliable source you can cite for "how long in the making it has been for woman to ever win a party's nomination." You can then add some prose to that effect, followed by the citation of that source. Failing both, I think you should omit the link. (And a friendly heads up, per the 1RR restriction in effect at this article, you may not do another revert until 16:55 tomorrow UTC. For definition of revert, see WP:Reverting.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - There were two other major nominees (More than a quarter million votes) , 36 other nominees. We should delete the sentence or change it to "third major nominee, 37th nominee". Adotchar (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders / Clinton rapprochement

See here and here for reporting of a meeting between Clinton and Sanders, which was followed up by almost identical press releases from both camps. -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A non event. Nothing came out of any of those announcements that changed anything. This is almost exactly what Bernie said after his meeting with Obama. In any case, this would be way below the radar for Hillary's main BLP article. Likely below the radar for the campaign article too until something actually happens (Bernie dropping/endorsing) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And that's probably not until tomorrow night's video chat. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm persuaded by both your arguments. This is something for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, if it's indeed worth putting anywhere at all. -- The Anome (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Alfred Taylor - Child Molestation Case

Find it hard to believe that this case hasn't been deemed worth of inclusion anywhere in the article, given that it was one of her first major cases, and the press attention it received in 2008 and 2014. The article doesn't even mention that she ever did any defence work at all, in fact her career bio jumps from 1974 to 1977, nothing about the first 3 years of her post law school career except to mention what effect changing her name would. I'll include citations

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658801/I-never-trusted-polygraph-Hillary-Clinton-LAUGHS-recalls-helped-suspected-child-rapist-walk-free-prosecution-lost-crucial-evidence.html

http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.99 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been on the fence before about including this story, but the PolitiFact write-up is a good one and I've included a brief description based on that. Part of why you missed her early legal career is that the sectioning was a bit messed up; I've moved some relevant material down into the first paragraph of the "Early Arkansas years" section. I've also expanded a bit on her work in founding this new legal aid clinic at the law school and also co-founding a rape crisis center in Fayetteville around that time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not think that it has achieved the degree of coverage in mainstream source to be included. Clinton's attitude makes her appear callous, which is why it gets internet attention, but it is not unusual for people who deal with violent criminals daily. TFD (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've ignored the first two sources above, so nothing in what I added to the article would make her appear callous. Just the normal reality that defense lawyers often have to represent unsavory, sometimes evil people; that's how the U.S. judicial system works. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
When you remove her comments, the case is insignificant. Imagine the headline at the time: "Lawyer defends man accused of crime." Also, while her defense performance was good, the reason the charges were reduced is that the prosecution lost evidence. So even then it is mundane. TFD (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

List of controversies

FYI List of Hillary Clinton controversies is up for deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Duh! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the first eight words of what Scjessey just said. Not so much the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also the failure to mention anything to do with her 6 yrs on the board of Walmart. One of the biggest abusers of corporate welfare. And how her policy was anything but pro women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.26.109 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I lost track of responding to this earlier. The Walmart board membership was not in that list because that list had a somewhat odd definition of what is "controversial". This biographical article does discuss her time on that board: Clinton was the first female member on Wal-Mart's board, added following pressure on chairman Sam Walton to name a woman to it.[123] Once there, she pushed successfully for Wal-Mart to adopt more environmentally friendly practices, was largely unsuccessful in a campaign for more women to be added to the company's management, and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices.[121][123][124] You obviously have a different view of her policy towards women while on the board, but this is what the best sources say. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo change for more updated, recent option

The photo currently in use is almost 10 years old and Clinton does not look like that. It is also not very flattering. This new photo is more recent and a more reasonable example of how she looks in the public eye. Having an outdated image does not comply with Wikipedia standards. Please discuss.

This has been discussed so many times before that we actually have a FAQ question for it. For my part, I agree with keeping the current photo as best representing her overall political career.- MrX 21:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_37&oldid=1083938510"